Brewerdave - that is pessimistic. Have you tried to reduce your energy usage too?

Huckster - what kind of energy efficient measures and products do you use?

Tick11 - thanks. Good bedtime reading :)

In my "future costs" spreadsheet I'm even more pessimistic - I've built in 12% pa !!! for gas and electricity costs; I'm looking to save ~ 3% each year on actual units consumed to minimise the impact.

this is a 113 page article from ofgem see

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Pages/MoreInformation.aspx?docid=2&refer=Markets/WhlMkts/Discovery

Hello Mynewt,

If it helps, I promise I'm not making a 'quick buck' out of the story :)

If you think a lack of depth in a 150-word story, is hampering the full and frank discussion of the issue, I'll try and make some time to do this later today.

My posts on the forum are not features, they're quick-fire stories inviting opinion. However, in response to your direct request for more information, I'll do this later today.

Thanks,

Felicity

The potential 60% price increase was only 1 of 4 possible scenario's presented by OFGEM, and it wa sobviously the most dire. OF COURSE the media and even MS have jumped on the bandwagon spreading more doom and gloom. At this stage each of the four sceanrio's are as likely to occur as one another including the 15% increase projected which in comparrison is a whole lot better.

Why don't we actually look at ALL the scenario's and get a full and clear picture of potential events rather than just one slant that's being propogated to earn a quick buck.

I agree wholehearedly with Huckster on this

Conspiracy theorists would say that the reason that very little money is being pumped into R&D is purely politcal - but who are we to argue ?

Felicity

Without sounding a nutter or a conspiracy theorist, I think there are a lot of very complex issues at play here.

With all the trillions of dollars of money that is generated from fossil fuels, the companies/governments that own these assets, will want to maximise revenues from these, before they become uneconomic to plunder. In the meantime consumers will be faced with having to spend an increasing proportion of their income on their energy needs. To avoid this, consumers should be investing in energy efficient measures/products to keep their usage as low as possible.

Once the current fossil fuels become uneconomic or outdated in about 25 years time due to cost and environmental issues, you will start to see new technology being introduced that will make energy a lot cheaper. But only cheaper by the level of costs in 25 years time.

If government wanted to help industry bring new technology to the market within say the next 10 years, why are they not investing more money in R&D. Could it be that they do not wish to upset the oil rich nations that have bought some of the government debts and own businesses/assets here ?

Huckster

Twee:

And as for your survey - what do you expect people to say ? - "Yes we want to pay even more for our power " ?

I think I was expecting what you provided - thoughtful insight into whether bills will have to rise regardless of what we prefer.

I'm also not sure where I stand on renewables. I don't think they are sufficiently efficient yet - and I used to edit a sustainable development magazine, so I had plenty of time to hear the case in their favour.

Personally, I think we need to expand our nuclear power generation while we work on creating more efficient renewables.

I also think it is inevitable that bills will rise while all this happens - but I want to know that people on lower incomes won't be left, well, out in the cold.

Felicity

We will run out of North Sea gas soon after this - so if we have to import ALL of our gas - this is not unexpected

And as for your survey - what do you expect people to say ? - "Yes we want to pay even more for our power " ?

I would like to see more government grants for alternative power sources - such as ground source heat pumps as well as solar, wind and water - plus of course the severn barrage MUST go ahead - At the moment - the grants available appear to be miniscule and vary greatly depending where you live in the country

If (for example) a centrally allocated fund was set up - paying, say, 50% of the costs of renewable power sources - this would also kick the employment problems into touch - think of all the jobs that would be created ?

Money need to be put into research to come up with a more efficient and cheaper way of producing Photo Voltaic Cells to produce electricty directlty from sunlight at the moment - these still cost £5k+ per Kwh - but in the USA, they are working on a thin plastic sheet that can be printed out at a fraction of this cost - this will solve our power problems - but if you want to continue to use the vast amounts that you use now - you are going to have to accept that the days of cheap power are OVER......

It’s been a bleak week for bill payers.

Although there may have been a spate of price cuts over recent weeks, the watchdog Ofgem has warned that UK bills could rise by a staggering 60% by 2016.

It is confident prices will rise by anywhere between 14% and 25% above inflation by the end of the next decade.

Why is that? Because the infrastructure requires massive investment. The body anticipates that up to £200billion is needed to meet carbon targets and to boost capacity.

Many of the country’s power stations are nearing the end of their working lives, prompting concerns over future energy supplies.

We recently asked you if you believe energy firms are ripping consumers off by not dropping their prices more over recent months. More than 96% of you said yes, and that bills need to come down.

Given Ofgem’s recent analysis of the investment needed into the industry, do you still think bills should fall? Do you believe energy firms are making large profits but will still pass on rising costs to customers? Perhaps you think we simply do not understand the behind-the-scenes costs of generating power.

Let me know what you think.